Filed: Feb. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-8020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MAURICE ANTHONY KING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CR-02-402) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Anthony King, Appell
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-8020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MAURICE ANTHONY KING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CR-02-402) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Anthony King, Appella..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-8020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MAURICE ANTHONY KING, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (CR-02-402) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Anthony King, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Maurice A. King appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for production of transcripts at government expense. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. King, No. CR-02-402 (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
